Bug 2516185

Summary:	Review Request: gap-pkg-vole - Backtrack search in permutation groups with graphs
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jerry James <loganjerry>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz>
Status:	ON_QA ---	QA Contact:	Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	luya_tfz, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	luya_tfz: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:		Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	2516180, 2516182, 2516184
Bug Blocks:

Description Jerry James 2026-08-14 20:41:08 UTC

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-vole/gap-pkg-vole.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-vole/gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc46.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package contains an implementation of fundamental group theory algorithms in Rust for GAP.

It aims to implement some highly efficient backtrack search algorithms in finite permutation groups.  These algorithms are intended to solve a range of problems, including (but not limited to):

- Subgroup intersection
- Normalizer
- Centralizer
- Graph isomorphism
- Coset intersection
- Canonical image

These algorithms are based on the theory introduced by the paper “Permutation group algorithms based on directed graphs” (2021) [1], by Christopher Jefferson, Markus Pfeiffer, Rebecca Waldecker, and Wilf A. Wilson.  This theory extends the well-established “partition backtrack” framework of Jeffrey Leon, and works with labeled digraphs as the fundamental objects of these algorithms.

[1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2021.06.015

FEDORA NOTE: If tracing is requested, the vole binary attempts to write vole.trace in the same directory as the binary.  That directory is not writable by regular users, leading to the vole program exiting with an error.  The Fedora build instead writes to /tmp/vole.trace.

I am willing to swap reviews.

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-14 20:43:52 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10866478
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2516185-gap-pkg-vole/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10866478-gap-pkg-vole/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Luya Tshimbalanga 2026-09-20 04:48:53 UTC

Scratch build shows a failure on i686 architecture:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=150422381

I suggest to exclude it now such hardware becomes rare: ExcludeArch: i{x86}

That should resolve the failure on COPR so we can do further review.

Comment 3 Jerry James 2026-09-21 21:29:22 UTC

You are absolutely correct.  In fact, the main gap package has that ExcludeArch.  Not having it in this package was an oversight.  Thanks for catching it!

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-vole/gap-pkg-vole.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-vole/gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc46.src.rpm

Comment 4 Luya Tshimbalanga 2026-09-24 06:17:19 UTC

Here is the review:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License
     2.0". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/luya/Documents/fedora-review/2516185-gap-pkg-
     vole/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
-> Upstream does not support ix86 architecture
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1853 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-vole-doc-0.6.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc46.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /home/luya/.local/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvudvvefe')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

gap-pkg-vole.src: E: spelling-error ('tmp', '%description -l en_US tmp -> mp, temp, tamp')
gap-pkg-vole.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('tmp', '%description -l en_US tmp -> mp, temp, tamp')
- Errors above are false posivite mean for path. Ignoring.
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/chooser.html /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/lefttoc.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/manual.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/manual.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/nocolorprompt.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/ragged.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/rainbow.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/times.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/toggless.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/toggless.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 22 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: gap-pkg-vole-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /home/luya/.local/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxastznbu')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 33, packages: 3

gap-pkg-vole.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('tmp', '%description -l en_US tmp -> mp, temp, tamp')
- Errors above are false posivite mean for path. Ignoring.
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/chooser.html /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/lefttoc.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/manual.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/manual.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/nocolorprompt.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/ragged.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/rainbow.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/times.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/toggless.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-vole-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/vole/doc/toggless.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings, 32 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/peal/vole/archive/v0.6.0/vole-0.6.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8b51b4ca05e7632543f90a7e717f4e3c85edbf1c38bc488463d3bf2b182b521a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b51b4ca05e7632543f90a7e717f4e3c85edbf1c38bc488463d3bf2b182b521a


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-vole (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap(backtrackkit)
    gap(datastructures)
    gap(digraphs)
    gap(graphbacktracking)
    gap(images)
    gap(io)
    gap(json)
    gap(primgrp)
    gap-core
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

gap-pkg-vole-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-online-help
    gap-pkg-backtrackkit-doc
    gap-pkg-digraphs-doc
    gap-pkg-images-doc
    gap-pkg-vole



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-vole:
    gap(vole)
    gap-pkg-vole
    gap-pkg-vole(x86-64)

gap-pkg-vole-doc:
    gap-pkg-vole-doc
    gap-pkg-vole-doc(x86-64)


Based on the above criteria review, this package is APPROVED.

Comment 5 Jerry James 2026-09-24 19:11:38 UTC

Thank you for the review!

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-09-24 19:18:07 UTC

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-vole
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2026-09-24 20:41:51 UTC

FEDORA-2026-1676d9c8d3 (gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1676d9c8d3

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2026-09-24 20:41:51 UTC

FEDORA-2026-3f34cfa6cc (gap-pkg-vole-0.6.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3f34cfa6cc

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2026-09-25 01:35:22 UTC

FEDORA-2026-1676d9c8d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-1676d9c8d3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1676d9c8d3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2026-09-25 02:16:39 UTC

FEDORA-2026-3f34cfa6cc has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-3f34cfa6cc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3f34cfa6cc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.